Summary Report from the Interagency Bison Management Plan Meeting

April 25, 2019

First draft presented May 10th, 2019 by meeting facilitator Scott Bischke

The following summary report reflects activities at the April 25, 2019 meeting of the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP) Partners, held at the Community Center in Gardiner, Montana. This report comes from the notes of facilitator Scott Bischke1. The report will be marked Draft until formal Partner agreement to make it Final at the start of their next meeting. The nine Partner attendees were Ryan Clarke (APHIS), Dennis Clairmont (CSKT), Ervin Carlson (ITBC), Mike Honeycutt (MBOL), Martin Zaluski (MDOL), Mark Deleray (MFWP), Cam Sholly (NPS-YNP), Neil Thagard (NPT), and Mary Erickson (USFS-CGNF). In addition to those at the deliberative table, ~70 other people were in the room over the course of the day, either staff members from IBMP organizations or members of the public.

Action items identified ............................................................................................................................... 2

Agreeing to previous meeting minutes ....................................................................................................... 2

Review, discussion of Apr 24th North Side field trip .................................................................................... 3

Improving safety, quality of the North Side hunt/improving boundary issues ............................................ 4

Bison quarantine and translocation ............................................................................................................ 4

Improve utilization of expanded bison habitat, especially in new West Side tolerance area ...................... 6

Availability of an Ecological Baseline for Tracking Ungulate-Vegetation Interaction in the Gardiner and Hebgen Basins ............................................................................................................................................ 7

Report on 2018/2019 Winter IBMP Operations to date .............................................................................. 8

Update on Custer-Gallatin National Forest Plan revision effort ................................................................ 12

Update on MT legislature deliberations on all bison-related bills ............................................................. 13

Partner briefings/updates—status of ongoing activities related to Yellowstone bison and brucellosis ..... 14

Next meetings, final comments ................................................................................................................ 15 Remaining 2019 meetings of the IBMP ........................................................................................................ 15 Meeting close ............................................................................................................................................... 15

Public comment ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... 19

1 MountainWorks Inc.; scott@eMountainWorks.com

* DRAFT version 190511 *

2 IBMP Meeting

Action items identified

Table 1. Action items identified during this meeting

# Who What By when

1 SB Post the Nov 2018 meeting report to the website as “final” ASAP

2 SB Add BCC presentation to the IBMP agenda for summer meeting ASAP

3 SB

RC noted that APHIS currently has lease commitments at the Corwin Springs facility for the next 3 yrs, but what happens beyond that is currently not known. Those decisions will be handled out of the Washington DC offices of APHIS. APHIS will graduate from quarantine the bison they have now but cannot say beyond that. Given that uncertainty, the new ability to send bison to Fort Peck for Phase 3 (and possibly later more), a Partner noted that they need to have a discussion about how given these changes the quarantine procedure fits into IBMP management, what the future looks like what roles each Partner plays, who funds the quarantine program, where is it located, how would the flow of animals work—e.g., maximum that could be moved, bottlenecks—etc.

Add this item to the Partners’ parked item list

ASAP

Agreeing to previous meeting minutes

The meeting started with introductions of Partners, staff, and all members of the general public in attendance. Cam Sholly made a short presentation to PJ White of his staff regarding a recent award PJ had received, the Craighead Conservation Award. Next the facilitator provided a short review of IBMP history. Then the facilitator asked if there were any objections or changes to the draft meeting report from the November 2018 meeting, and noted the report has been available in draft for review since shortly after that meeting. No objections were made. Thus the facilitator, per Partner Protocols, is to post the November 2018 meeting notes to IBMP.info as Final (** action item 1).

Figure 1.—During introductions, Cam Sholly (standing) recognized PJ White (center, smiling; both of NPS) for being honored with the Craighead Conservation Award.2

2 Following Cam’s words PJ remarked (paraphrasing here): “If I’d have known he was going to do that, I’d have taken a vacation

day today!” Those assembled all had a good laugh.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

3 IBMP Meeting

The facilitator reminded Partners of their plan to include focus on three items that they agreed to as

having a good chance for short-term success. That agreement, first discussed at their May 2017 meeting and finalized at their August 2017 meeting, can be found at http://ibmp.info/Library/20170803/20170803.php (see link titled “Report on increasing IBMP Partner effectiveness”). The three items of focus—1) Improving utilization of expanded bison habitat, especially in new West Side tolerance area, 2) Creating a bison quarantine facility, 3) Improving safety, quality of the north side hunt/improving boundary issues—form three sections of this meeting, as reported below.

Review, discussion of Apr 24th North Side field trip

Partners, staff, and anyone who attended the field trip from the previous day took part in an open discussion. The Gardiner Basin field trip was organized by the Bear Creek Council. Roughly 60 people attended, largely made up of Partners, staff, treaty hunting tribal members, and BCC members. Some members of the public, both local and distant, as well as members of the press also attended. BCC provided a lunch to all attendees after the field trip, and then a panel discussion was held. Panelists, all from BCC, were Nathan Varley, Sabina Straus, Rick Lamplugh, Fred and Julianne Baker, Sue Oliver, Katie White, and George Buman. The discussion was interactive with the Partners, and included these questions for the panelists that BCC wanted on the table: What is your history in the Gardiner community? How would you describe your relationship to wild bison? What has your direct experience been with the bison hunt? Do you feel there is anything that could be done to improve the situation?

A slideshow of the field trip can be found on the IBMP website at http://www.ibmp.info/photos.php. Also, BCC provided a flier for the field trip that included a map of the field trip and BCC talking points. That flier can be found at the meeting webpage: http://www.ibmp.info/Library/20190425/20190425.php.

The facilitator seeded the discussion with his personal summary (Figure 2) of the field trip and follow-on lunch and panel discussion. Throughout the discussion here nearly every speaker either thanked BCC for their organizing efforts or, alternatively, thanked the Partners and staff for such a strong showing. Some points made during the field trip review and discussion follow:

We heard lots of complaints about people’s dogs but we should consider that dogs are infringing on wildlife, not the other way around. I’m not saying dogs are the problem, but I am saying that we—meaning people—are the problem. We build our houses in places where the wild critters belong, then we ask them to mold to our needs when we should be molding to theirs. The human footprint outside the Park is the problem and we have to address that fact.

The hunt and issues around it are merely a symptom that we are loving the periphery of the Park to death. For example, some see the houses in danger of hunters’ rifle shots. Of course safety is of concern to everyone. But one can also see that houses are built where they should not be, taking up wildlife habitat.

I appreciate the community on display at the field trip, and in the discussions here. We can work on and solve the trash issues.

While we are all keenly aware of most of the issues, it is always powerful and instructive to get on the ground and talk with people and hear their concerns directly.

We are still operating under, or prioritizing, the three goals we set a few years back for the IBMP Partners. We hear the ideas like moving bison across Montana but need to make things work here, under the scale and scope of control of the IBMP Partners. I think that we should work in smaller, less structured ways.

I agree with earlier statements that maybe we should work on people management. I run cattle but don’t participate in reimbursement program if one of my cows is killed by a grizzly. It was and is their land, and I am simply a visitor.

I recommend we continue with the concept of place-based discussions and think we should give BCC a time at the following IBMP meeting (* action item 2). We would like to hear ideas for both short-term and long-term solutions, recognizing that the IBMP Partners, with different jurisdictions and mandates, can’t often take immediate action. Perhaps a subcommittee approach might work for local solutions

* DRAFT version 190511 *

4 IBMP Meeting

between BCC and selected staff. Mike Thom from USFS, who is local, could help. (Chris Geremia from NPS was also mentioned.)

If we follow this path, perhaps we should call it a “working group”.

It would be useful if BCC provided some key goals, especially if short term in nature, to FWP that could be discussed at the Hunt Managers’ meeting May 16.

The bison here should be allowed to roam free, both here and on our homeland. We should have regulations on the bison and on us.

Improving safety, quality of the North Side hunt/improving boundary issues

Partners briefly considered that the previous (April 24th) field trip day, as well as the discussion just held, were fully about the North Side hunt. In addition, they recognized that the afternoon session on Winter Operations to date would also largely cover the North Side hunt. As such, they decided to forego this session in lieu of the afternoon Winter Ops discussion.

Before moving to the next topic, Partners pointed out that the annual Hunt Managers’ meeting will occur on May 16, 2016 in Missoula.

Bison quarantine and translocation

CG provide the following graphical summary of the status of bison currently being processed through quarantine.

Figure 2.—Facilitator’s summary slide of some key ideas and points of discussion from the April 24 IBMP field trip into the Gardiner Basin, as planned and led by Bear Creek Council.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

5 IBMP Meeting

At the last IBMP meeting (Nov 2018) RC reported that 61 head of bison were being held at the APHIS

Corwin Springs facility and that of those, 5 bulls had passed testing and “graduated” the quarantine process (also known as Phase 2). At this meeting, RC reported that the 5 bulls had now been transported to the Fort Peck Reservation quarantine facility for Phase 3 assurance testing. These are the first bison that will go through any part of the 3-phase quarantine procedure outside of the DSA. <facilitator’s note: Partners, staff, and public numerous times across the day commented that though a small step, this largely non-controversial transfer was a big and positive step forward to be celebrated.>

While MR celebrated the transfer, she noted—as she has before—that the Fort Peck facility has both the goal and the capability to do other aspects of the quarantine process, i.e., Phases 1 and 2, not just Phase 3. She noted that the Fort Peck Tribe is committed to cooperate with APHIS and the state of Montana to bring more bison to the Fort Peck facility. MR said that if Fort Peck was allowed to do Phase 2 testing, they could take 600 bison (RC said he thought that many might be logistically difficult). We are in the dark as to the impediment keeping us from Phase 2 testing, she said. One Partner cited Montana statute 81-2-120, dealing with bison transport, as the main issue3. MH said the bison are not yet considered risk free because even if sero-negative they could convert to being sero-positive after leaving the current DSA. MR said that the Fort Peck Tribe could put the bison down if that were the case. Why not put a DSA around the Fort Peck area? she asked. EC asked why he could see so many elk on the way to Gardiner, many certainly with brucellosis, and no one seems to care.

Robbie Magnan, director of Fish and Game for the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux tribes, expressed happiness over the success of the transfer. He noted that the tribes are using their bison to help spread genetic

3 This law has been discussed many times at IBMP meetings. The law can be found on the Montana legislature website—see

https://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/81/2/81-2-120.htm.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

6 IBMP Meeting

diversity to bison beyond their own tribal lands, and mentioned bison-related interactions with the Bronx Zoo, and sending bison to the Wind River and Rosebud reservations.

CS noted that the transfer of five bison, while small in numbers, is an important learning tool for NPS and the IBMP. A big positive, he said, is that with the Fort Peck quarantine facility able to do assurance testing (i.e., Phase 3), those bison no longer have to be held within the limited quarantine space in the DSA to pass that milestone. CS also noted that the NPS goal is to transfer 58 bison to Fort Peck sometime in the fall of 2019 (see CG slide directly above).

As he had previously, RC noted that APHIS currently has lease commitments at the Corwin Springs facility for the next 3 years, but what happens beyond that is currently not known. Those decisions will be handled out of the Washington DC offices of APHIS. He said that APHIS will graduate the bison they have now from quarantine but cannot say beyond that. Given that uncertainty, the new ability to send bison to Fort Peck for Phase 3 (and possibly Phases 2 and/or 1 later), a Partner noted that they need as a group to have a discussion about how given these changes the quarantine procedure fits into IBMP management. Key questions include what the future looks like, what roles each Partner plays, who funds the quarantine program, where is it located, how would the flow of animals work—for example maximum that could be moved, bottlenecks—and so on (** action item 3 – add this item to the Partners’ parked item list).

CS said that NPS hopes to expand the quarantine program. He said that if APHIS steps away from the Corwin Springs facility that NPS could consider looking at taking over that space. CS said that he hopes APHIS stays.

MH provide some concluding thoughts on the session. He repeated earlier statements that moving the five bison to the Fort Peck quarantine facility was a big and important step and should be celebrated. He said he heard no controversy over the move at his office, and attributed that fact to the “rigor” and hard work of the Partners over multiple years to develop the science (quarantine process) and educate interested parties as to risks. Even if we disagree on some points of law or geography or others, MH noted, we showed that we can agree upon a method for moving bison out of Yellowstone to Fort Peck and elsewhere in the USA. This step should be considered a huge success to build upon, he concluded.

Improve utilization of expanded bison habitat, especially in new West Side tolerance area

This item had two topics. The first was to review and revamp, as needed, of timeline shown in Figure 1 of the current (2018/19) Winter Ops Plan regarding South Fork of Madison Arm. This item was a request made at the 11/28/18 IBMP meeting. Here MZ, who made the request, said that the item could be delayed and the desired change made in the next Winter Ops Plan (i.e., 2019/20). Thus, this item was tabled.

ME noted that in the past there had been talk about the potential to manipulate habitat as a way to aid migration into the new West Side tolerance area, including up through the Taylor Fork drainage. Specifically, an idea has been floated for increasing the width of a migration corridor along Hwy 191. ME said the CGNF has done no work to that ends as of this date. She asked if Partners thought that they should form a working group to this ends, perhaps including an NGO. The idea received some discussion but no working group was named nor action item created. ME also said more work with the state of Montana was needed.

MD said that FWP is working with MDOT regarding safety concerns along the Hwy 191 corridor. He also noted that the concept of a temporary hunt cessation for the area, as discussed at the previous IBMP meeting, is still under consideration.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

7 IBMP Meeting

Availability of an Ecological Baseline for Tracking Ungulate-Vegetation Interaction in the Gardiner and Hebgen Basins

Presentation by Dr. Clayton Marlow, Professor, Department of Animal & Range Sciences, Montana State University

Figure 3.—Dr. Clayton Marlowe of Montana State University spoke to Partners, staff, and public regarding his team’s work to characterize vegetation in the Gardner and Hebgen basins.

Dr. Marlow is a consultant working for the CGNF to assess rangeland condition and makeup in the

Gardiner and Hebgen basins. He described his team’s efforts to develop a baseline for the area against which future range studies could then be compared to see how the range is changing under impacts (including herbivory, fire, and other stressors). Dr. Marlowe’s full presentation can be found at the meeting website: www.ibmp.info/Library/20190425/20190425.php.

Dr. Marlow described the goal of his work for the Forest as being to develop ecological baseline for monitoring sustainability of vegetation and soil. The work includes two objectives: 1) identify historic data sets that might serve as baseline; and 2) construct ecological reference guide for determining vegetation status and trend.

His team sampled 68 sites in the Gardiner Basin, 14 sites in the Hebgen Basin. Sample sites were selected to capture a large variety in ecological status. Criteria for selection included areas that bison might use; landscapes <25% tree cover; broad geologic context; NE and SW aspect to ensure high to low production potential; and four categories of slope to capture range of grazing use. Data collected included in the physical (e.g., soil depth, organic matter) and vegetation (e.g., species, density, canopy cover, biomass production) realms.

Dr. Marlow employed past work, in areas outside the two basins under study, as the best current data we have to estimate range health in the two basins of his study (Figure 4). He pointed out that his team’s work can now serve as the baseline for future efforts to assess rangeland health and trending in the Hebgen and Gardiner basins.

To track ungulate interaction with vegetation, a key aspect of the work with respect to bison viability in the two basins, Dr. Marlow said that regular monitoring of established sites is critical and that few of his

* DRAFT version 190511 *

8 IBMP Meeting

inventoried sites had previously studied (e.g., not cataloged under either Forest Service publications or Montana Natural Heritage listings). Vegetation and soil complexes in the two basins, his work shows, stand at a threshold. Dr. Marlow discussed the nuances of early, mid, and climax stages—what each means relative to vegetation makeup and productivity and ramifications for land managers if you have one type of stage over the other.

Dr. Marlow was asked if what he thought was limiting bison distribution outside of the Park: forage or confinement. He responded that in his mind it was the latter because under the current status bison are not able to access all available forage.

The area has a long history of heavy grazing, Dr. Marlow noted, there is nowhere to go but up. He said that you can have lots of herbivores if you have lots of good habitat.

Figure 4.—Example of data comparison to assess range health and trend provided by Dr. Marlow and his team’s studies.

Report on 2018/2019 Winter IBMP Operations to date

CG began with an overview of winter operations from the NPS perspective. In particular, he concentrated on the way the Stephen’s Creek bison capture facility was run and how its operation was coordinated with those hunting to the north of YNP. Chris’s slides, presented below, are well annotated and self-explanatory. His slides can also be found at the meeting website (www.ibmp.info/Library/20190425/20190425.php).

* DRAFT version 190511 *

9 IBMP Meeting

* DRAFT version 190511 *

10 IBMP Meeting

* DRAFT version 190511 *

11 IBMP Meeting

* DRAFT version 190511 *

12 IBMP Meeting

At the conclusion of Chris’s talk, Partners and staff provide the following comments, feedback, or their

own data:

JW said he was pleased to see the data CG had provided; that the situation is not fully real until the data is compiled. He noted that it was a hard year for hunters, that only a few had been successful. He mentioned that CTUIR hunters travel a great distance from tribal lands, and that some advance knowledge of if bison are out and huntable would be helpful given time, distance, and expense to undertake the hunt. JW also noted that he appreciated the improved communication this year and would like to see even more from the state of Montana. He said that Tribal Hunt MOA really helps with communication—it gives parameters on what to do and how to do it, plus what to do if communication breaks down.

George Menininck of the Yakama Tribe echoed the idea that their tribal hunters have a long way to travel and some advance notice of whether bison are outside the park and huntable would be useful.

NT said that tribal enforcement gave a good report on the year’s hunt and cooperation between tribal enforcement personnel. They had no incidences of note besides a sliced finger and broken ankle. They did use the MFWP hotline and request that the line remain available after state hunting ends. The tribe also extended the length of their hunting season due to poor hunting.

TM reported that tribal members harvested two bison on the West Side. He said he wanted all to consider that this was not a unique winter this year and may be the new norm given climate change. He thought that the fall has seen the most change and that maybe late migration in spring has become the norm. Perhaps we will need to extend the season, TM said. He also said he hoped all eight hunt groups join the Tribal Hunt MOA to better deal with issues of the hunt.

JW also reiterated the invite for all to join the MOA and noted his hope that Northern Arapahoe, one of the newest treaty hunting tribes, would join the MOA. JW said the purposes of the MOA include improved safety and communication, and providing an official forum to find common ground.

One hazing event of 20-30 bison was reported on private land.

TM further added that while quarantine will help, that the market for quarantine bison will eventually saturate. The IBMP Partners need to make bison hunting, which will be a tool we always use, a showcase here. We need to demonstrate that the hunt here in Montana is unique and works because of a partnership that includes great communication on the ground. This is a demonstration process, he said, and everyone in the room is part of that process.

MD said he will send out the state hunting results. One state hunter was successful. He also noted that the Hunt Managers’ meeting is May 16 in Missoula, at the Valley Garden Holiday Inn, starting at 10 AM. MD said he was accepting input on the agenda.

JH stated public thanks to all the enforcement personnel for their good work.

Update on Custer-Gallatin National Forest Plan revision effort

ME described the process that the CGNF was undertaking to revise their forest plan. They are in the third year of a four-year process. The strategic planning is supposed to be completed every 15 years, but ME said in practice it is often more like every 30 years.

The Forest released its draft plan and draft EIS and is taking public comment on the plan from March 1 – June 6, 2019. The public has been invited to learn more about the revision options through ten public meetings, as well as via webinars and podcasts. The Forest has also reached out to tribal groups for their education and input. The public meetings have spanned the forest, in cities from Bozeman to West Yellowstone to Ashland to Billings and more. A previous public comment period that ended 3/5/18 generated over ten thousand comments. Those comments helped the Forest scope the range of alternatives (5 total, including the no action alternative) currently being considered.

The final preferred alternative is expected to be released in the spring of 2020, followed by an objections period. The CGNF hopes to have its new forest plan finalized by November 2020.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

13 IBMP Meeting

ME also noted that of special interest to this group bison were not being listed as a species of concern per USFS definition in the proposed forest plan. Species categorized under this designation generally have some combination of the following: small or decreasing population trends, limited or decreasing habitats, and significant threats facing them such that there is substantial concern they may disappear from the forest. The decision for this listing, made out of the regional office, was that bison do not meet those criteria. While bison were not declared a species of special concern, the forest planning rule requirements still provide for bison management and protection under other auspices.

< facilitator’s note: Regional USFS Wildlife Biologist Cara Staub provided a full presentation titled "Bison Conservation Framework in Forest Planning" at the November 28, 2018 IBMP meeting. That talk can be found at the meeting webpage: http://ibmp.info/Library/20181128/20181128.php >

Figure 5.—Over the course of the day, roughly 75 people attended this meeting of the Interagency Bison Management Plan, held at the Gardiner Community Center.

Update on MT legislature deliberations on all bison-related bills

Dan Wenner of ITBC and Mike Honeycutt of MBOL provided updates on four bison-related bills under consideration by the Montana Legislature during its 2019 session. The two provided insight into the motivation for each bill; descriptions of conflicts, if any, regarding intent of the bill or potential or perceived unintended consequences of each bill; the importance of wording in bill presentation; and similar. Mr. Wenner provided a presentation about several of the bills but asked that the presentation not be included in the notes or posted due to client-attorney privileges.

Bills were in in process or being transmitted to the Governor as this meeting was underway. As of this writing (5/8/19), the facilitator provides the name and status of each bill below, as found on the website of the Montana Legislature4:

1. House Bill 112 a. Title.—AN ACT REVISING REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTATION OF ANIMALS, ANIMAL

SEMEN, AND ANIMAL BIOLOGICS; CLARIFYING DOCUMENTATION OR PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR ANIMAL MOVEMENT; REPEALING REGULATIONS FOR SEMEN USED IN ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; AMENDING SECTION 81-2-703, MCA; AND REPEALING SECTIONS 81-2-401, 81-2-402, AND 81-2-403, MCA.

b. Current Bill progress.—became law.

2. House Bill 132

4 See the following website to search for information on each bill (accessed 8 May 2019): http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20191&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=112&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTIO

N=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ=.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

14 IBMP Meeting

a. Title.—AN ACT CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF "WILD BUFFALO" OR "WILD BISON"; CLARIFYING THAT THE PER CAPITA FEE DOES NOT APPLY TO CERTAIN DOMESTIC BISON; AMENDING SECTIONS 15-24-921, 81-1-101, 87-2-101, AND 87-6-101, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.

b. Current Bill progress.—probably dead.

3. House Bill 332 a. Title.—AN ACT REQUIRING AUTHORIZATION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WILD BUFFALO OR WILD BISON ARE RELEASED INTO A COUNTY; REQUIRING RELEASE OF WILD BUFFALO OR WILD BISON TO MEET CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AMENDING SECTIONS 7-1-111, 76-1-605, 81-2-120, AND 87-1-216, MCA; PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE AND AN APPLICABILITY DATE.

b. Current Bill progress.—probably dead.

4. House Bill 478 a. Title.— A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING LAWS RELATED

TO TRANSFERRING WILD BUFFALO OR WILD BISON TO TRIBAL ENTITIES; ALLOWING WILD BUFFALO OR WILD BISON TO BE QUARANTINED ON AN INDIAN RESERVATION WITHOUT BRUCELLOSIS-FREE CERTIFICATION; REMOVING THE ABILITY OF THE STATE TO SELL LIVE WILD BUFFALO OR WILD BISON; REQUIRING WILD BUFFALO OR WILD BISON CARCASSES BE DONATED TO CHARITY OR A TRIBAL ENTITY; CREATING AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PERMIT OR HEALTH CERTIFICATE REQUIREMENT FOR THE IMPORTATION OF WILD BUFFALO OR WILD BISON INTO THE STATE FROM NATIONAL PARKS OR PRESERVES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN EXPOSED TO BRUCELLOSIS; AMENDING SECTIONS 81-2-120, 81-2-703, AND 81-4-603, MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE."

b. Current Bill progress.—probably dead.

Partner briefings/updates—status of ongoing activities related to Yellowstone bison and brucellosis

Mark – update on addition of new treaty hunting tribes Nothing new to report. A short mention was made of the Northern Arapaho Tribe now hunting

previously in the meeting, and of the tribe having a member in attendance at this IBMP meeting.

All—IBMP-related implications, if any, related to federal government shutdown No items or concerns were brought forward.

Shana Drimal—Update on bison coexistence/fencing project Shana stated that the program is ongoing and they continue to solicit new projects.

Scott — update of Partner Protocols since last IBMP meeting (now includes table from Winter Ops)

The facilitator both described and showed that the responsibility matrix (i.e., Table 2) in the Partner Protocols was updates to match that same matrix in the more recently modified 2018/19 Winter Ops Plan (Table 1 in this document).

Scott — update on information request for MDOT The facilitator both described and showed that the MDOT had provided data requested by Partners,

staff, and public regarding wildlife fatalities on highways 89 and 191. This request was made at the Nov 28, 2018 IBMP meeting. MDOT provide the information as an Excel spreadsheet that can be found posted on the webpage for the Nov 28, 2018 meeting: http://www.ibmp.info/Library/20181128/20181128.php.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

15 IBMP Meeting

Other items

ME said that there is a new Resource Advisory Council forming for the CGNF and that interested parties should talk with Mike Thom or Jason Brey of her staff.

Next meetings, final comments

REMAINING 2019 MEETINGS OF THE IBMP The Partners noted the remaining meetings of 2019 to be as follows: a) summer meeting—July 31st in

Bozeman MT; and b) fall meeting—December 3rd in West Yellowstone MT. Looking ahead to next year, TM offered that the CSKT host the summer IBMP meeting.

MEETING CLOSE Rebecca Frye of APHIS thanked Partners, staff, and public for attending the meeting. She also reiterated

thanks that had permeated the day: to the Bear Creek Council for their efforts in creating the April 24th field trip. Rebecca bid everyone safe travels and closed the meeting.

Public comment

The following summaries of public comment are not intended to be complete, but rather to capture key points of each public comment as presented. Upon review, Partners sometimes point out that statements made during the public comment are either incomplete or incorrect.

The facilitator has especially attempted to capture those comments from the public that appeared to be solution-oriented and/or have the potential for inclusion in adaptive management planning, and/or process improvement, and/or use as agenda items for future meetings. These items, as well as other potentially actionable public input, are called out with a “**” in the listings that follow. The “**” callouts are especially added to items that the facilitator does not believe are already under consideration by the Partners (or have been in the past).

Names associated with comments are available from the facilitator. They are not included here, however, in an effort to focus on the comment rather than the speaker. Line breaks in the bullets indicate a new speaker. Public comment was taken just after lunch in reaction to numerous past public comments about public input being of less value at the end of the day.

Member of BCC. Greatly appreciate all the time we’ve had to talk and provide our input, including

yesterday’s field trip.

Want to acknowledge people on Bear Creek Council that helped build trip; it was not just me and I should

not get all the credit. Speaker names numerous members of BCC and what they do and did for the field

trip. Also mentions other NGOs that helped push the idea of the field trip forward.

Story of being given multiple bison hides and treasuring them … except my tanning costs are becoming

high. And (jokingly) I thus request that no one give me anymore! (laughter). So no more but to know, I

treasure them!

Also with BCC. Also want to thank all the Partners, all the staff for your attention and responses at field

trip and especially this morning.

Also want to thank you for the idea that we may have a conduit to work directly with you. I want to make

sure we want tribal groups involved, not just USFS or MFWP. We have solutions we believe will work

with all groups and want to work with everyone.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

16 IBMP Meeting

Persistence takes change. Hello all. Thanks for your attention for this brief moment. I’ve had honor of

watching this effort for the past 22 years and think I am the only one who has. I see the faces around the

table keep changing. I seem to be the constant in the room.

** The thing that has me baffled is that APHIS and DOL did a great thing with DSA they made it so the

state of MT cattle industry did not suffer a consequence for a transmission. But yet the only animals that

are allowed to use it are the elk that transmit brucellosis. It just doesn’t make any sense that this land

isn’t opened up to the bison as well, and we can manage them through hunts.

One of the biggest problems for Native Americans is that treaties say that you can hunt on unclaimed

lands, which is national forest – of which there are millions of acres of in the DSA. We are making these

poor hunters hunt in a war zone. It is a miracle no one has been shot so far.

** To me if we open this up for bison to wander we can eliminate this problem. As is, I often wonder if

this (not allowing bison onto unclaimed lands) isn’t a violation of treaty rights. How can we mandate that

we have this one species (elk) only that carries the disease but is allowed to use these unclaimed lands?

** We need to get this disease off the bioterrorism watch list so that we can do the research to get a real

solution instead of killing bison.

Also, because this is such an unnatural hunt, I would think for community relationships could use money

no longer being used for helicopter hazing that we could invest some money to go out at the end of the

hunting season and go out there with a back hoe and clean up remnant gut piles. If we are going to create

the problems we should be part of the solution.

I think we are moving is some right directions and like that you are offering BCC the opportunity to

suggest some solutions because I think some of these are easy to fix.

Born in Chico Hot Springs 76 years ago so have seen a lot of changes in our life. Some good, some not.

Really appreciate what Clayton Marlow had to say. You gotta realize that as land managers you can’t go

down, you gotta go up.

Few years ago we put up a buffalo fence with APHIS around my land. And my God, you look outside that

fence now and the cedar trees are dying. But inside that fence they grew. That’s called overgrazing, folks.

You gotta take care of the soil.

What do people want to see Yellowstone look like in a hundred years? Go look at the Lamar. At one time

the Lamar Valley looked better than Tom Miner Basin. You better think about that one.

Figure 6.—The IBMP Partners went on a field trip the day before the IBMP meeting (i.e., on April 24th, see field trip description earlier in this report). The field trip was planned and led by the Bear Creek Council. This photo shows field trip attendees walking in the vicinity of Beattie Gulch.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

17 IBMP Meeting

You need to think about water quality and taking care of this public ground.

Also on BCC. Want to thank all Partners and staff for coming to Gardiner and want to make a small ask:

that it happens more often.

I want to read a note for a BCC member:

o Thanks to IBMP. Creating a short term working group that includes BCC is a great first step but I want

to emphasize that the management plan needs to change so bison can repopulate MT and can be

transported to tribal lands, like Fort Peck.

Want to thank all. I really appreciate that the Partners allowed BCC to host a field trip and provide this

community opportunity to share their concerns and also some of their ideas. This is undoubtedly the

most effected community when it comes to how bison are managed today.

** I hope that there will continue to be regular opportunities for engaging communities that are

impacted by Yellowstone bison.

I also want to say that I am feeling hopeful after yesterday’s field trip and discussions, and this mornings.

I think that we are making some small steps forward. I do also want to celebrate the 5 bulls that were

sent to Fort Peck.

On the other hand hope that we can eventually bring the quarantine program to scale. As Cam said I

think it is really important we get a pipeline of bison moving through the program. I think it is worth it

even though I know that it is expensive. But I don’t know if we can put a price tag on conserving the

genome of out last wild herd of bison, as well as diverting the bison from slaughter, as well as restoring

bison to Native American lands. It’s so important and quarantine is a tool we can use.

** I hope we can move toward using Fort Peck as a Phase II facility. I also think that looking at some other

options within the DSA would be important, as well.

One of the primary goals of the IBMP is to maintain a wild, free-ranging bison population. However I

think we could make the argument that goal is not being met today -- between hunting and population

reduction Yellowstone bison are still largely confined to the Park. And while there has been so much

effort toward habitat extension to make lands outside the Park available, the vast majority of those areas

are sitting there empty today.

** So I hope the Partners can start looking outside the box. Last year there was a great presentation by

Julie Cunningham and Chris Geremia about potential migration pathways into the west side. But there

wasn’t any follow up to that work. So I would ask the Partners to re-look at that work and go through

and identify what each obstacle was to bison using those pathways, and then figuring out how to remove

those obstacles so that we can get the bison using the new tolerance areas.

I’m with the 9 Quarter Circle Ranch and also representing the Upper Gallatin Landowners.

Not lots of discussion on the Upper Gallatin today but I want to retouch on a couple points important to

us. We continue to be opposed to any sort of mechanical or hazing of the bison into the Taylor Fork area.

If they do naturally migrate there that’s fine and we’ll deal with it. But I’d like to see solutions considered

so that we’ll be ready on how to handle it and become proactive if they do come.

We still have concerns with safety for the general public, for camping, guests, for highway corridor. Hope

we continue to work with the DOT.

** Another concern is Taylor Fork grazing as in a map Clayton showed. 33% of that property available for

grazing in the Taylor Fork is in the valley bottom which is 100% on our private property. So I am concerned

with that and hope we can find a way to do some fencing projects or similar to protect our land and that

of other private property owners.

There’s also grazing on public land and I’m also concerned about what might happen to that if we add

another ungulate onto that landscape and ecosystem.

* DRAFT version 190511 *

18 IBMP Meeting

I do think there is an endpoint in sight and hope that we can continue to work together and keep the

communication open. If so, I think we can find long term viability for the bison, for the environment, and

for our businesses.

I learned much over in Beattie Gulch yesterday.

I understand there are lots of philosophical and scientific issues that we might not all agree on.

** However I do think there are a few things everyone can agree on and we might be able to take a baby

step and cooperate on: First thing is human health and safety issues. No one wants to get shot or feel

like they might get shot. So that is a concern. The other thing you could agree to cooperate on would be

cleaning up the mess, especially in Beattie Gulch or on the Jardine Road. We saw just a few carcasses out

there but next year we might see three or four hundred out there that we’ll be walking through. It is

possible to clean up the mess.

** Meeting adjourned **

Figure 7.—Painting just inside the Gardiner Community Center (unsigned, artist unknown).

* DRAFT version 190511 *

19 IBMP Meeting

Abbreviations

AM—Adaptive management

APHIS—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BCC—Bear Creek Council

BFC—Buffalo Field Campaign

CG—Chris Geremia

CGNF—Custer Gallatin National Forest

CSh—Cam Sholly

CSc—Carl Scheeler

CSKT—Confederated Salish Kootenai Tribes

CTUIR—Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

CV—Clay Vines

CWG—Citizens’ Working Group

DSA—Designated Surveillance Zone

DW—Dan Wenner

EA—Environmental Assessment

EC—Ervin Carlson

EH—Eric Holt

GAO—Government Accountability Office

GW—Germaine White

GWA—Gallatin Wildlife Association

GYA—Greater Yellowstone Area

ITBC— InterTribal Buffalo Council

JC—Jennifer Carpenter

JH—John Harrison

JW—Jeremy Wolf

LG—Leonard Gray

LW—Leander Watson

MBOL—Montana Board of Livestock

MD—Mark Deleray

MDOL—Montana Department of Livestock

MDOT—Montana Department of Transportation

ME—Mary Erickson

MEPA—Montana Environmental Policy Act

MFWP—Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks

MH—Mike Honeycutt

ML—Mike Lopez

MOA—Memorandum of Agreement

MOU—Memorandum of Understanding

MR—Majel Russell

MSGA—Montana Stockgrowers’ Association

MSU—Montana State University

MV—Mike Volesky

MZ—Marty Zaluski

NAS—National Academy of Sciences

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act

NGO—Non-governmental organizations

NPS—National Park Service

NPT—Nez Perce Tribe

NPTEC— Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee

NRC—National Research Council

NRDC—Natural Resources Defense Council

NT—Neil Thagard

Park—Yellowstone National Park

PIOs—Public Information Officers

PJ—PJ White

RC—Ryan Clarke

ROD—Record of Decision

RF—Rebecca Frye

RFP—Request for proposals

RTR—Royal Teton Ranch

SB—Scott Bischke

SEIS—Supplemental EIS

SG—Stephanie Gillin

SK—Salish Kootenai

TM—Tom McDonald

TR—Tim Reid

USFWS—US Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS—US Geological Survey

WMA—state of MT wildlife management areas

YELL—Yellowstone National Park YNP—Yellowstone National Park